pdshetler wrote:"An EAA reference is worth a great deal to the agency who markets the "program" but only as an advertisement..." Well YEAH - that's the kind of reference I was talking about. Perhaps endorsement would be a better word. So let me re-word: to receive an endorsement from the EAA, an insurance company should have to offer coverage for all FAA-recognized experimental categories.
You don't seem to understand...the agency does not set the rates or determine what risks will / will not be written...that is the underwriting company...the ones with their money on the line. As I previously stated, most people do not even know the name of the underwriting company so what good is the EAA endorsement? No endorsement from any organization whatsoever will ever move an underwriting company to offer insurance to "all FAA-recognized experimental catagories." Have you even thought about how broad that is? I have seen many aircraft out there that I would not want to be in the same airspace with, let alone fly.
If an underwriter did offer coverage for your particular aircraft, how much would you think is fair? Would $500 per year be fair for liability coverage? How many policies would a company have to write at $500 per year just to recover from 1 liability claim that hits the $1,000,000 limit? The answer is 200,000 policies...or 20,000 policies for 10 years...there are not that many trikes flying in the world, let alone the US. Before you start thinking that a $1 million liability claim would not happen don't forget that lawsuits are covered under liability and the cost to the company to defend them comes over and above the policy limit.
pdshetler wrote:I hope that LowFlyBye does not imagine his "explanations" are 'reasons' -- they are industry excuses. A short, Alaskan runway is not a 'reason' to deny insurance, it is an excuse not to sit down, do the research, crunch the numbers and give a quote. The fact that someone flies a powered parachute or a trike or a home-built is not a 'reason' to deny a policy, it is an excuse. I strongly suspect that the real reason aviation insurance companies won't offer even liability for these situations is that the numbers are small enough that they figure they can only make a reasonable profit instead of the huge profits they are accustomed to.
I don't imagine anything...I am just trying to explain the often misunderstood aviation insurance market to you...like it or not...don't keep shooting the messenger Call it a reason, or an excuse...call it a crappy system if you wish, but the fact still remains that there are guidelines that the underwriting companies decide to follow when offering coverage on each risk or deciding not to offer a quote. Since the underwriting company is the one placing it's money on the line they get to determine how and when they will do so. You do not have to accept their offer if you don't like it...you can always risk your own money and self insure. If they don't want to take the risk then they do not have to, and they do not even have to provide a reason why. No person or organization has the authority to make them do so. It is a business...they are in it to make money...and they can decide how and when to best use their resources to be as successful as possible. No different than you or I...we call it capitalism.
How would you react if someone told you when, where, and how much money you would be required to risk regardless of the historical loss information you have?
If you so strongly believe your suspicions to be true, then by all means sit down and do the research, crunch the numbers, and start an underwriting company for all experimental categories. If your suspicions are correct then you should have no problem making a "reasonable profit" for yourself. Please be sure and check back in with us and let us know how well you are doing so that we can congratulate you on accomplishing what others have failed to do. Who knows, you may be correct and achieve the American dream in a niche the others have chosen not to persue.